While I think the NRA is a terrible organization with very few redeeming qualities, I would never penalize someone for participating in a group they felt passionate about. The idea that an adcomm would look down on a EC because of its political implications seems ludicrous to me.

Cicero76 wrote:While I think the NRA is a terrible organization with very few redeeming qualities, I would never penalize someone for participating in a group they felt passionate about. The idea that an adcomm would look down on a EC because of its political implications seems ludicrous to me.

Even if certain people have a rabid anti-NRA bias, justified or not, OP would be doing himself a disservice by not including it. Most people here have focused on the potential downsides of being NRA affiliated (such as being perceived as nutty mcnutterson), but he would actually be bringing a type of diversity that is in demand at law schools.To quote Asha:

For example, it's important to us as an institution to have a variety of viewpoints represented in order to foster robust and challenging classroom discussion -- to this end, we're very interested in having ideological diversity in each class. Law students, and by extension law schools, are on the whole liberal-leaning, so it's up to admissions officers like me to make sure we identify and attract those students who might be more right-of-center. Now, it's harder to surgically target these students, since political affiliations aren't something that LSAC asks you to check on your profile. A few years ago we tried a desperate, shotgun approach and sent invitations to apply to highly-qualified students from the Red States. Our volume dropped that year.

(http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/admissi ... doves.aspx)Now, whether or not OP is an extreme right-wing crazy that so many of us imagine NRA supporters to be or even actually conservative, he did the application equivalent of "checking the box." He made her job easy. She wants him.

If being honest, showing that he has a passion for something, showing his leadership ability and responsibility, and showing that he doesn't spend all his time playing video games are not sufficient to convince OP to include it on his resume, a Dean Asha stamp of approval is the last consideration I can offer.

Even if certain people have a rabid anti-NRA bias, justified or not, OP would be doing himself a disservice by not including it. Most people here have focused on the potential downsides of being NRA affiliated (such as being perceived as nutty mcnutterson), but he would actually be bringing a type of diversity that is in demand at law schools.To quote Asha:

For example, it's important to us as an institution to have a variety of viewpoints represented in order to foster robust and challenging classroom discussion -- to this end, we're very interested in having ideological diversity in each class. Law students, and by extension law schools, are on the whole liberal-leaning, so it's up to admissions officers like me to make sure we identify and attract those students who might be more right-of-center. Now, it's harder to surgically target these students, since political affiliations aren't something that LSAC asks you to check on your profile. A few years ago we tried a desperate, shotgun approach and sent invitations to apply to highly-qualified students from the Red States. Our volume dropped that year.

(http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/admissi ... doves.aspx)Now, whether or not OP is an extreme right-wing crazy that so many of us imagine NRA supporters to be or even actually conservative, he did the application equivalent of "checking the box." He made her job easy. She wants him.

If being honest, showing that he has a passion for something, showing his leadership ability and responsibility, and showing that he doesn't spend all his time playing video games are not sufficient to convince OP to include it on his resume, a Dean Asha stamp of approval is the last consideration I can offer.

I fully realize that Asha gonna Asha but I think everything she said there was kind of a flame.

Anyway, I suggested the OP leave the NRA part out primarily because he seemed to be worried about that part but still wanted the soft on his application and I figured if it would help him sleep better at night then might as well leave that part off of the description.

Again, I think this is all overblown because softs in general don't really help ones application and I don't see this one being a positive one either. At best, it'll make no difference.

I don't think she was intending to mislead or annoy, nor does she have much cause to do so. (Yeah, I had to look up flame in the jargon thread in order to frame a remotely cogent response. nbd.) Regardless, this

Cicero76 wrote:While I think the NRA is a terrible organization with very few redeeming qualities, I would never penalize someone for participating in a group they felt passionate about. The idea that an adcomm would look down on a EC because of its political implications seems ludicrous to me.

Why not just leave off the fact that it was associated with the NRA? Could you not just say you taught a gun safety course? If I saw that my thoughts would be, "Wow this person is mature enough to teach adults the proper way to own/handle a firearm" not politics. Even the most liberal person surely can't be against gun safety.

Ultimately though, I think almost everyone who has gone through the application process can tell you that things that aren't your GPA/LSAT mean very little in the end.

Cicero76 wrote:While I think the NRA is a terrible organization with very few redeeming qualities, I would never penalize someone for participating in a group they felt passionate about. The idea that an adcomm would look down on a EC because of its political implications seems ludicrous to me.

Outside of their political activities, what's so bad about the NRA?

Personally, I rate the NRA lower than other similarly conservative groups because of their long history of opposing scientific research that runs counter to their ideological commitments. Ex: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57564599/

Cicero76 wrote:While I think the NRA is a terrible organization with very few redeeming qualities, I would never penalize someone for participating in a group they felt passionate about. The idea that an adcomm would look down on a EC because of its political implications seems ludicrous to me.

Thank you all for the advice, and I appreciate the input from everybody, including those who private messaged me. I think I'm probably going to list the soft, but as others have suggested, leave out the part regarding the NRA.

I think it's kind of a shame that the political arm of the NRA gives people such a bad impression of the organization as a whole. In the area that I live in, which is one of the bluest states in the country, they're really the only good option for people that want to learn about firearms. Most of those that I know affiliated with the NRA, and gun people around here in general, are some of the nicest and most helpful people you would ever meet. Just goes to show political bullshit can really ruin anything.